Ex wife trying to move daughter to Port Charlotte, Florida...any advice?

[Ten]

Originally Posted by novanative75

I disagree with you, that is all, no need to attack and no, I am not familiar with strawmen and I would never kick my dog. Apparently I don't understand your attempt at attacking me or humor whichever it is.

I'm not attacking, I'm defending my position against the strawman argument, which is like asking somebody if they stopped kicking their dog: The aspersion and assumption precedes the facts. You asked a misleading question that had no bearing on my statement, obviously, and concluded with a condemnation based on that aspersion.

I am a guidance counselor and have been for years and have worked with several, several, several kids who are from single parent homes, some are co-parented, as you say, with the other parent living in the area and being somewhat a part of their life. Others, and most, do not have another parent in their lives, an 'alienating parent' as you call it, and you know what, they deserve the same opportunties and support and optimism about their futures that their 'happy family' classmates get; and them having problems, although it may be a higher risk is certainly not 'guaranteed', that is not fair to say, THAT is a strong statement. Sure, there are problems in kids from a one parent home but there are problems in kids from two parent homes.

Once again, that is not what I said. What I said was this (which comes from hard experience, a ton of research, huge collaborating evidence, and federal statistics):

1. Move-aways are frequently alienating parents.

2. Single-parented kids convincingly lead every child dysfunctionality. You even counsel them yourself, helping prove the point -- if they weren't troubled, they'd not be in counseling.

3. Children need both parents. Relocating a child, especially if it's to alienate/leverage/get revenge/make money, is wrong.

I know the statistics and you are right, they are probably out there. But, this poor man, who may have not control over whether his daughter is taken away or not, certainly does not need to be told that his daughter's future will be doomed if this happens, right?

The OP is naturally free to disregard anything anyone here says (and I suggest he do so.) The other side of that coin is that not knowing how these things work early on can cause harm itself -- there's a substantial risk there too.

Further, I suggested that there were alternatives, novanative75. I provided a link to the most important work on the devastation from family law to date. Given your line of work, I'd recommend a copy. Really. Knowing the incentives behind divorce would create a tremendous perspective that I'm sure you'd find most useful.

Look, there is no good solution for many of us. But forewarned is forearmed. I spent 11 years fighting for my daughter's legitimate best interest and may have even saved her life, as bad as things were going on the other side. The key was making the effort, as massive and costly as it may be for some.

I am only trying to stand up for kids here, no matter where they come from, and what their family situation is, they deserve the chance at a future without being labeled. I wish no one got divorced and I wish all kids had two parents but it is not the way it is. Would you tell a child who's parent passed from cancer that him having problems was a 'guarantee'? I doubt it.

Nor did I label this child, novanative75, quite the contrary. You keep seeing my commentary through your own filters.

What I said was that given the alternatives, many have chosen to fight, sparing their children a ton of potential grief later on. There's nothing mysterious about children needing both parents, especially one as dedicated as the OP seems to be.

[novanative75]

Originally Posted by Ten

2. Single-parented kids convincingly lead every child dysfunctionality. You even counsel them yourself, helping prove the point -- if they weren't troubled, they'd not be in counseling.

I am a school guidance counselor, I work with all the kids in the school, the ones I am talking about are not 'in counseling', they are successful in school, coming to me to talk about their futures, research colleges, celebrating their academic successes and enjoying life as great kids. Counseling a child in school does not mean there is anything wrong with them. I work with students in regard to all issues in school, from getting them accepted to Harvard (an African American boy from a single parent home who never knew his father) to helping them overcome drug issues and being the biggest drug dealer in the county (a boy from a two parent home, by the way)
My only point in continuing to 'discuss' this issue (albeit somewhat hijacking this man's thread and I apologize!) is that you can not say that all kids from single-parent homes are doomed for dysfunctional lives, you cannot. It makes me so sad to think that people out there really think that.
Imagine being in my shoes, I walk into school everyday hoping to help kids be the best they can be. What service am I doing to them if I label them and offer up pessimistic views on their futures based on how many parents are in their lives. I can not do that, I can not think that way or I would be a terrible counselor.

I appreciate your extensive research and you are clearly an intelligent person but I can not agree to your grouping EVERY child of a single parent home into this category of dysfunction. The same way I would NEVER say that all children in two parent homes are not dysfunctional. As an educator, I know that this is simply not the case.

I am not sure if anyone had the pleasure of watching 20/20 last night but they did a follow up on a piece they had done before about children in Camden, NJ. That is a rough area, understatement. Anyway, they showcased several kids who were living in the worst of circumstance, I don't think any of them had two parents. But, you watched these kids and you had hope. These kids are watching their family members get shot on thier front porch and are sleeping on the floor, playing in parks covered in needles HOWEVER, they go to school, try hard and are trying, trying to have a normal successful life with a future despite their circumstances. Are we to throw our hands up and say to them that they are doomed or are we to look at their successes and help them as they strive to be better than their surroundings? You tell me. One of the boys was 18 years old and a wonderful piano player, I think off to school for music.
It is possible to be a successful, productive adult, despite less than optimal childhoods and family situations. We should all strive to keep our families in tact and have two parents in our kids lives but if that can not be the case, we have to continue to give our kids hope and allow for their success.

Sorry so long but as counselor, this is a real sore spot for me. I have a lot of real life experience in this arena.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by novanative75

...you can not say that all kids from single-parent homes are doomed for dysfunctional lives, you cannot. It makes me so sad to think that people out there really think that.
...I can not agree to your grouping EVERY child of a single parent home into this category of dysfunction.

Every?

Let's cover it yet again:

1. Statistical juvenile dysfunctionality is convincingly led by single-parented children.

2. Not all single-parented children are dysfunctional.

See the rather profound difference? Can you think of a solution? I can.

I report mere statistic. Take them up with the government. It's the same government that, in the name of "welfare reform", created huge financial incentives to divorce parents and create single-parent families.

From there, kids need both parents. Because statistical juvenile dysfunctionality is led by single-parented children, which tends not to bode well for substantial numbers of single-parented children.

Can you think of a solution? I can.

Distancing a child from a rightful, caring, capable parent is itself a virtual crime. Scores of times the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parenting and being parented are on legal par with life itself.

I can't believe we're a nation that now considers debating whether a better shopping mall, public school, or softball team actually constitute a valid replacement for a parent.

[novanative75]

Originally Posted by Ten

2. Not all single-parented children are dysfunctional.



From there, kids need both parents. Because statistical juvenile dysfunctionality is led by single-parented children, [i]which tends not to bode well for substantial numbers of single-parented children.


Distancing a child from a rightful, caring, capable parent is itself a virtual crime. Scores of times the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parenting and being parented are on legal par with life itself.

I can't believe we're a nation that now considers debating whether a better shopping mall, public school, or softball team actually constitute a valid replacement for a parent.

See, before you said that it was a 'guarantee' that all kids with absent parents were headed for a life of dysfunction. Now you are changing your story reiterating MY point that not all single parent kids are dysfunctional

Do you realize that many single parents have not taken their kids from 'rightful, caring and capable parents.' Some have taken their kids from abusive parents or non-caring parents or some kids never knew a parent at all. Some parents choose not to be a part of their kids lives. Should we hold that against the child, is that their fault?

Who is considering that debate you speak of? People are talking about raising children in areas that are safe with good schools, shouldn't we want that for our kids? That has nothing to do with the issue of single parenting.

Here's the thing, there are going to continue to be single parents and there are going to continue to be kids raised by said single parents. We can give these kids optimism and help them have a great life with success or we can bury ourselves in statistics, accuse the government of this and that continue to talk about how bad their lives are going to be.

Why bother with the statistics, they are what they are. I would rather spend my time doing what I do best, helping kids.

I am a product of single parenting, by the way. I went to college, and graduate school where I achieved a 4.0 and a Masters Degree, I have a successful career and a successful marriage. How's that for dysfunction!

I suggest you spend less time buried in the many negative statistics and volunteer at the local YMCA or Boys and Girls Club. These kids don't need stats, they need hope and promise for the successful future that they CAN have.

[Ten]

Whatever you are, novanative75, you're expert at two things: Reading your biases into other people's exact, direct words, and concluding with summaries that serve neither the OP nor the topic in general.

I suggest you spend less time buried in the many negative statistics and volunteer at the local YMCA or Boys and Girls Club. These kids don't need stats, they need hope and promise for the successful future that they CAN have.

What these kids need is a reformed system. A reformed system, quite obviously, is their primary hope and promise for the successful future. In your line of work, which is to a degree cleanup in the aftermath, why do you oppose such reform, novanative75?

To that end, I've already volunteered hundreds of hours with my state legislature, my governor, my local social services, and with scores of parents suffering a hostile child takeover by an ex for fun, money, and revenge. A parasitic, for-profit divorce and custody regime has simultaneously opposed tens of thousands of us at every turn, including judges violating state constitutions, Washington DC harassing and overriding local elections and authorities, and special interest groups lying about the divorce culture so as to protect the bad laws that leave kids in the crosshairs.

Have you? Do you know what the "divorce regime" is?

I suggest, again, that you stop thinking about job security and nannyism and start thinking about how we got to 50% divorce rates. How we got to numbers like the following. And who stands the most to gain by refusing to allow fundamental constitutional rights to protect children as intended.

Children from fatherless homes account for;

63% of youth suicides.
(US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Census)

71% of pregnant teenagers.
(US Dept. of Health and Human Services)

90% of all homeless and runaway children.
(US Dept. of Health and Human Services)

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions.
(US Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept. 1988)

85% of all adolescents with behavior disorders.
(Center for Disease Control)

Compared to children in male-headed traditional families where their natural parents are married to each other, children living in female-headed single-parent, lesbian or other environments where they are deprived of their natural fathers are:

1. Eight times more likely to go to prison.
2. Five times more likely to commit suicide.
3. Twenty times more likely to have behavioral problems.
4. Twenty times more likely to become rapists.
5. 32 times more likely to run away.
6. Ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
7. Nine times more likely to drop out of high school.
8. 33 times more likely to be seriously abused.
9. 73 times more likely to be fatally abused.
10. One-tenth as likely to get A's in school.
11. On average have a 44% higher mortality rate.
12. On average have a 72% lower standard of living.

Source: "The Garbage Generation" by Daniel Amneus Ph.D.

Did you catch #12?

Try not to conform a set of social and cultural conditions gamed into being by an entire industry of family law parasites into your own biases. And kindly don't have the temerity to lecture me on how to spend my time...which is as one of tens of thousands of family law reformers who've had enough.

We stand in the actual best interest of your charges. You may wish to rethink your assumptions about who you're dealing with and why.

You and I may have both come from single parent households. But one of us has the sense not to use that regrettable and unnecessary condition as a filter through which to see the world. I suggest, for the third time, that you take a look at Baskerville's findings -- in your line of work, they're absolutely in your best interest and in the best interests of the impressionable minds and hearts you're paid to shepherd.

That reality may change even your rigid expectations of what is really an American family and its children under siege.

[novanative75]

We are arguing different points, and that is fine, both need to be addressed. The work you are doing sounds great and IS needed and I applaud you for that, really I do. Hoping and working towards better family structures for our kids is excellent and the government needs and should be involved.
The stats you provide are true, there is no arguing that. But, there are kids that are affected now that need immediate attention and support. Telling a 17 year old child with one parent that they are 10 times more likely to drop out of school does not do the child any service. We do need those stats in the overall picture but my job, is to deal with the affected kids now.
I think, after all of this debate we have had, the conclusion is this. We are both passionate about what we do. You, working with the government and local organizations, and families to make better the issues of divorce and family and legislation surrounding it, and Me, working with the kids now.
Together, we are both working towards brighter futures for our kids and families and a brighter America, hopefully. We are just doing two different things. It will take millions of people working in various capacities to change things and we are simply two of those people.
I don't criticize what you do, please give me the same courtesy. I feel like what I am doing, helping kids, is very important and it hurts my feelings to be told that I am being 'paid to shepherd.' I also don't have 'rigid expectations of what is really an American family'. I work with kids, no matter where they are from and what they do. They come to be from several kinds of family structures and it is my job and my passion to help them and I do.
We, in the schools, are very grateful for people such as yourself who are out there fighting for our kids and their families. Again, you are very passionate about what you do and what you believe and I have no doubt that your work will make the lives of many families better. I ask you to see, also, that my work helps many kids.
I think we should agree that we are both here for the best interest of American families and kids.
I also think we should stop this debate and our subsequent hijacking of this poor man's thread. Although we both have good points and facts, what he wanted was help with his immediate situation and information about the area. I don't think either of us live in Port Charlotte!!

Good luck with your continued work with American families, it is so important and we really do thank you.

[Keeper]

While I think this is a worthy subject, it is gotten way off topic regarding Port Charlotte FL to the pros and cons of a 2 parent family..

There is a parenting forum on City-data where this discussion would be welcomed.

Closing